1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

On September 24, 2016, around 00:20:0 on September 24, 2016, in front of the CUG located in Gyeongcheon-gun B.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is citing it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. The following shall be added to the fourth five pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is dismissed or added:

The Plaintiff asserted that the construction cost incurred in repairing the Defendant beauty room should be excluded from the damage, since the damage was not caused to the interior wall interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior arching equipment due to the instant traffic accident. However, according to the overall purport of the film and oral argument set forth in the evidence No. 21 (including paper numbers) of this case, it is recognized that the glass window of the Defendant beauty room was broken due to the instant traffic accident, and the damage was partly damaged to the wall, and the damage was caused to the wall caused by glass dust, etc. in the remote area, etc., and the construction cost for repairing the interior wall of the Defendant beauty room constitutes ordinary damage caused by the instant traffic accident. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is rejected, since the construction cost for repairing the interior wall of the Defendant beauty room falls under the category of damages caused by the instant traffic accident, the following is added to the fifth five pages of the judgment of first instance.

The Plaintiff asserts that “A beauty room’s ordinary recovery period is sufficient to be 10 days in its process. As such, the Defendant’s business shutdown damage should be recognized only for the damage amounting to 10 days, which is the ordinary recovery period. However, as recognized earlier, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the repair work for Defendant beauty room was performed for 19 days, and that the repair work was delayed more than ordinary cases, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is rejected.” The fifthh of the judgment of the first instance to the fourthh of the first instance to the third to the fourth one, stating “6% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act, from May 30, 2018,” the Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the existence and scope of the obligation to perform.